Massattack

"Rubbish", "Fail" "Pathetic", just some of the words used by Husky in his numerous postings throughout this thread. Whatever your thoughts on the opinions and arguments of others, your manner of debate comes across as very arrogant to say the least, and words such as above only serve to alienate rather than persuade people to your way of thinking. No matter how wrong you think the opinions of others, it would be nice if you could at least show them some respect. Attack the man and not the argument, and you wonder why? One of the reasons I have enjoyed the Battlefront forums has been the generally high level of maturity and debate that exists here, especially when compared to some of the other forums around. The end result of postings like the above are to stifle debate and put people off posting their opinions. Regards.

Overlord a done deal! Husky I think you need to revise that lengthy reading list of yours. The odds were always heavily in favour of it succeeding, but very few academic war historian would consider that "Overlord was a given." As it was, unseasonal weather conditions were nearly as dangerous to the operation as any enemy action. Of course its easy to make opinions like Husky's with the benefit of hindsight. Regards. Sorry guys, thought I would throw in my 2 cents about subs!

Husky65, I am with you completely on this one. On this scale there is more risk of damaging the gameplay with well meant rules to include spies and enigma, than there is of seriously emulating their effects in a realistic manner. Regards.

Don't know if many of you have tried the historical Axis Battle of the Atlantic, but I tried to emulate it by putting a lot of research into better subs, and technology. I ended up with level 2 subs, and in the last go had three of these sub groups out in the convoy lanes in the atlantic. The MPP hit for the UK was 40 points. Regards.

Leave a conquered country denuded of friendly units at your peril. I used both Corps in Norway to support my invasion of Sweden, and the AI landed a UK Army beside Oslo and liberated it. Regards.

This game proves that the best games don't require the latest 3D graphics, bells, whistles to impress. The creative imagination put into the making of this game ensures that the endless "what ifs?" and permutations it offers will keep me and many others intrigued and absorbed for a long time to come after it's eagerly anticipated release. To Hubert my heartfelt congratulations and admiration, Don't let the misdemeanours of immature individuals discourage you from your obvious talent for producing outstanding, first class products. Regards.

Top class, makes an excellent game even more enjoyable. I did try one of the mods with the proper military designations, but found I was inadvertantly moving the Air Units to places they were better not to be! Regards, and like everyone else, eagerly waiting with my creditcard poised to swoop!

Except, Jason, that player feedback is not the only criteria for making changes in the game. BTS have proven well over the time CMBO is out that they have listened to player feedback (far more than most companies) and made numerous tweaks. These have been in cases where they have considered the feedback convinced them that a change would be an advantage. You have failed to convince BTS that this change is necessary for the pricing of FT units. You have also failed to convince me and numerous other players ,as is obvious from all these circuitous threads and posts. Even if the makers don't care particularly one way or another about the exact pricing of particular units, why the hell should they change it just because a minority of players are not happy with that particular aspect of the game.Get real.

Willbill, That huge conflagration is the nuclear bomb in the basement going off!.Seriously though ,the game seems to model building destruction like a large bomb, must share the same bmp files or something. If you have troops in a building when it collapses they generally suffer some casualties:you were lucky your's did not. The troops will often try to leave a building of their own volition if it is nearing collapse. If you click on your units that are in a building that is receiving shellfire, you will see them as in terrain type "Building*", or worse "Building**". The asterix means the building is damaged. When you see 2 asterixes,get them outa there pronto, if they have not already tried to leave themselves. Engineers in CM can only clear Minefields, destroy bunkers, pillboxes, or vehicles with their satchel charges, they cannot clear barbedwire, destroy bridges or buildings. Hope this helps. Also in close combat, an engineer squad can throw the satchel charge at an enemy squad. I recently had this happen against me and lost quite a few men in the explosion........bit stronger than a grenade you might say! [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Massattack ]</p>

If you want a reasonably small QB against the AI, try a probe, combined arms,you as the attacker, about 7 or 800 points,village or farmland, mod trees and hills, computer pick for both forces, with a plus 1 experience level for the AI, and 125% forces to the AI. I find this is normally enough to make for a challenging battle against the AI.Also make the map large, gives more possibilities to both sides.Everyone will have their own variations, but I have found the above quite good!

The defender in Probe, Attack, and Assault gets foxholes for his troops. There is more ground to defend in a probe, but the attack/defence ratio, as mentioned in a post above, is less biased in favour of the attacker.Trying to defend all the VL locations in a Probe game will probably string out your forces too thinly to be effective.

Thanks for the timely warning Chupacabra.....I have edited the post. Guess I just wasn't thinking after a long day!......................

SPOILER FOLLOWS***** * * * * I am pretty sure I heard my troops (US) call out "Watch out, enemy fighter!", during a bombing run on my forces in a recent scenario. This is the only time I have come across what might have been German airpower so far. The scenario was "Bootprints", which I downloaded from The Scenario Depot. I am guessing that troops receiving "friendly" fire from an aircraft would not shout out as above. However I do admit that it is possible this was an example of friendly fire, as the briefing did say to expect air support. The only airpower to appear were two bombing runs, on my infantry first, then on one of my Stuarts, resulting in 9 casualties from the first run, and an immobilised Stuart and eliminated Flamethrower unit from the second run. It was on the second run that I heard the troops shout out the warning. The area was heavily wooded, increasing the chances of mistaken identity on both sides. [ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Massattack ]</p>

Well done Phil!...Worth printing off and getting framed. Pity about the 4 men who presumably ran off the map to live and fight another day!

Thank you ABN for an excellent post, giving a real world insight into infantry battlefield conditions. This and Kipandersons post go a long way towards convincing me that CMBO's model, with absolute spotting, though not perfect, is a lot less unrealistic in it's effects than many would have us beleive. There has been a lot of hypothetical talk about the range at which different units could be spotted in various terrains etc., and it is refreshing to obtain some real life information about this. In particular, I really like the way CMBO allows you to spot foxholes shortly before you spot their inhabitants if you are moving towards them at a sensible speed. I do not wish to criticize the very interesting debates on this forum, but sometimes I feel they stray away from reality, perhaps because only a minority of us have had relevant military experience. My two cents, euros, dollars, whatever.

The Siberian Lesser Brown Fox. Favourite habitat.....Rubble.........Has recently colonised Afghanistan in large numbers.......!

Thank you Sitzkrieg, I liked them....they have more of the CRUMP of HE explosions!Makes it more enjoyable? being under a heavy arty bombardment...........did I say that???

Thank you Jason for an excellent and informative post. Definitely a must for the FAQ, and just the sort of information that us new enthusiasts of the game need to help refine our gameplay.

Thanks for the replies. I guess I envisaged the scanario of squads facing each other off, low on ammo, throwing grenades at each other indefinitely, but as some of you have suggested, in close combat squads will chew each other up probably quicker than the hypothetical supply of hand grenades. What bought the question on was a recent game I played where a squad upstairs in a building, low on ammo, chucked out a steady stream of grenades at an immobilised HT nearby. I like the idea of Molotov Cocktails, it would add an extra dimension to urban fighting.

Did a search, but could not find the answer anywhere obvious. Anyone know how long a squad's supply of grenades lasts?. The Manual only states that the quantity is not tracked in the game.Will they keep throwing grenades at each other after the small arms ammo is used up, ad infinitum, or does the grenade supply also get used up? I guess I could set up a test to find out, but just wondered if anyone knew!

Thumpre-I got your file 12/Axis 4 plus movie, and returned file 13/Movie 4 to you, but you may not receive this if you are in the middle of changing email address. Let me know if you need it resent once your new ISP is up and running.] A1steaks-reply coming shortly!Just finished one of the Scenarios, so should have more time now for turns.

I have found them best at ranges of 150-500 metres, so they are best in scenarios without too much restriction on LOS. I have found them worst in night/fog with visibility around 50m, where they have the lifespan of a chicken in a snakepit. The ammo loadout is not individual rounds, and their firing, like the infantry, is abstracted, so they are not actually firing once every 15 or 20 seconds as the movie clip shows. Krinks plan for using them is IMHO the best way, as long as you realise, as he states, that not all plans come to fruition!

Thanks for the message KIA. My Pumas and I eagerly await your return to battle! Good luck with the move......Whatever you do, don't break the CMBO CD!!

As they have no further function in the game, they are not modelled. The dead body represents the last casualty of that unit. The rest are assumed to be lying wounded on the battlefield/crawled off to die or get medical help/got dragged away by their buddies etc. I can only assume that to show the casualties would have involved a lot of extra progamming effort with no benefit to the game except perhaps some dubious visual enhancement.

I think it would be reasonable to add 50 to 100% more to the confirmed casualties of HE fire. Can you tell your PBEM opponent I'd sure like to play him!